At the beginning of the fourth act of The Tempest, after having made his future son in law, Ferdinand, struggle and work hard to demonstrate his good will, the main character of the play, Prospero, says the following to Ferdinand: "Then, as my gift and thine own acquisition / Worthily purchased take my daughter." Those lines always lead to a lot of discussion, centered on the question of the daughter's status. Is she an object to be "given" or "purchased"? From my point of view, that's not so odd a thing to b¡tch about, at least not in the play and in the historical period in which Shakespeare is writing, anyway. And that's the "baggage" that remains floating in the air.

Ahem. Shakespearean era notwithstanding, does anyone in their right mind, in this day and age, actually think that Steve was treating his daughter as property or chattel?Thought not.

If anyone wants to debate present day issues with old time mores and laws...we already have a nationwide debate going on about weapons and ownership. Leave Steve and his daughter in peace.

"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard-line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans? Maybe he’s not the problem."

"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard-line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans? Maybe he’s not the problem."

The baggage comes from the old practices that underlie the common expression. Once upon a time a father in effect owned the daughter, and almost in a literal sense "gave" her to the future son-in-law. As Leslie said, that's not what Steve meant to suggest, but the connotation is still present for some, maybe a lot of people.

"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard-line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans? Maybe he’s not the problem."

Excuse me. I'm older and I know a lot of older guys who were more concerned about their daughters, especially in the 50's and 60's when women didn't work and the man was expected to take care of them So of course the father was concerned that the daughter would marry well.Times have definitely changed and things are more equal today. So for here you are again dictating what others should think and calling out ludicrous because some people may feel that way.On another note, there absolutely no way for you to prove or disprove that it is incorrect for anyone to believe in something. Narrow minded much? I didn't say I believe this, just that some fathers may have more concern for their daughters.

"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard-line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans? Maybe he’s not the problem."

The baggage comes from the old practices that underlie the common expression. Once upon a time a father in effect owned the daughter, and almost in a literal sense "gave" her to the future son-in-law. As Leslie said, that's not what Steve meant to suggest, but the connotation is still present for some, maybe a lot of people.

Correct.

Giving Your Daughter Away.

The tradition of the father giving away his daughter has its underpinnings from the days of betrothals and arranged marriages. Daughters were considered their father's "property: and it was the right of the father to give his child to the groom. In some cultures, the groom "bought" his right to the bride.

Thankfully, times and cultures have largely changed, but the tradition continues a symbol that he approves of the marriage.

Not every father and daughter will want to have this part of the ceremony, although a father walking his daughter down the aisle is a well accepted and sometimes touching part of the ceremony.

Now, it will seem like you, Dad, are putting your daughter literally and figuratively into the arms and care of someone who is barely ready to accept the responsibility. But it is a wonderful gesture of confidence in your new son-in-law, and should be done graciously.

"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard-line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans? Maybe he’s not the problem."

"If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard-line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans? Maybe he’s not the problem."

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.